Joel Spolsky's talk at Yale, part 2

I don't think Netflix qualifies as in-house programming. IMO, when Joel refers to in-house programming, he refers to companies that have a core competency that has nothing to do with software.

If you work at an insurance company or tech support company, you'll be writing code to make lives easier for people who work at the company. Your customers are in-house employees.

I currently work as an in-house developer for a University of about 30k students. While there is less deadline stress, it's not exactly like actually being a student again. We have cubes and an organizational bias towards Java-Is-The-Best-Solution-For-Everything.

That said, the people here are all happy. Employees get 22 paid vacation days a year, and the dress is casual, excepting meetings with the very high ups. There is no prototypical office asshole, and we usually have more money than people, so you have a lot of freedom to buy equipment you need or software that will solve a problem if it makes more sense than writing it yourself. It's kinda nice to be in-house and yet not have to reinvent the wheel. It leaves you free to tackle fun/interesting/non-cookie-cutter problems, rather than writing some ERP module that should be a commodity.

I did this for a while. There are some good aspects to this job - you tend to get plenty of vacation, futher education and conferences are well supported. Salaries are only the low side in my experience, definitely not great - but when adjusted for pensions and stability (very difficult to get fired), there isn't much to complain about.

There are also some really horrible elements to this job. For starters, the stability - which sounds great - means that you will truly be surrounded by dead weight. Utterly unmotivated people work in some of these departments. It really got to me, to the point where I couldn't stand to be there anymore. A pension is great, but I'm not going to hover around for 30 years in a spiritually dead place (I'm not exaggerating here). I'll find another way to save for retirement.

Another problem is that the jobs almost never lead to the top. There are a few CIO/style or "Chief Architect" style jobs at universities, and those are pretty sweet gigs for those who get them. But if you have a job in a non-academic department, you're definitely a cost center, the definitive in-house programmer. There are very interesting projects in academic departments, but expect what I'd call a "parchment ceiling" - ie., you can't progress without the right degree. In a software company, people seem to like grad degrees, but if you can bring it, they'll put you in a high impact position with a lot of creativity and automony. At a university, the Ph.D grant-holder is in charge. Period. The dev is more or less a (decently paid and well appreciated) paraprofessional.

This was just my experience (I worked for a university as a dev for almost 3 years). Overall, I'd say that unless you really want the stability, don't do it.

Here in DC Georgetown has a bunch of job listings that seem to average about half the market rate. The non-profit sector pays slightly better, but it's far more lucrative to work for a contractor or one of the product companies in NoVa or DC (my strong bias is toward the former). As stated, it's profit-center vs. cost-center dynamics.

I'm an in-house programmer (left grad school because I thought I'd get some money). The job is painful. The layers of bureaucracy are suffocating. It probably doesn't help that I'm actually working for contractor that produces in-house software for the federal government.

Oh well, at least its expected that an employee will move around a bit.